ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President—The Revision Petition No.1103 of 2010, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), was filed by the Petitioner/Complainant challenging the order dated 30.11.2009, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 844/2006 where by the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint was set aside and Appeal filed by the Respondent, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, the HUDA) was allowed. Vide order dated 10.01.2020, this Commission while setting aside the order of the State Commission, remanded the matter to it to decide afresh.

2. Succinctly put, the material facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant purchased a plot from one Mr. Raj Kumar, allottee of a plot by the HUDA and the necessary endorsement was made in favour of the Complainant by the HUDA in their record. However, due to financial constraint, Complainant requested for refund of the amount deposited with HUDA. Accordingly, HUDA refunded the deposited amount of ¹ 5,34,990/- after deducting 10% of the total cost of the Plot. Complainant requested the HUDA to refund the entire deposited amount which request was rejected. Consequently, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint No. 525 of 2005 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, the “District Forum”) praying for allotment of an alternative plot and adjustment of the balance amount towards the cost of alternative plot. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the HUDA to allot an alternative plot to the Complainants and adjust the amount payable to him by HUDA.

3. HUDA challenged the order passed by the District Forum before the State Commission in Appeal No. 844 of 2006. Though the said Appeal was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside by the State Commission by order dated 30.11.2009 but in the Execution Proceedings initiated by the Complainant before the District Forum during the pendency of Appeal, the HUDA allotted an alternative Plot No. 337, Sector 31, Faridabad in favour of the Complainant vide letter dated 30.04.2008. Even the permission was granted to construct over the plot and the map was also sanctioned. Both the parties concealed these facts before the State Commission.

4. The Complainant preferred the Revision Petition No.1103 of 2010 before this Commission against the Order dated 30.11.2009 of the State Commission. Vide order dated 10.01.2020, this Commission set aside the orders passed by the fora below and remanded the matter back to the State Commission with the following observations:-

“The respondent HUDA preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA no. 844 of 2006 against the order of the District Forum. However, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal, HUDA went ahead and complied with the order of the District Forum and allotted plot no.337, sector 31, Faridabad, vide letter dated 30.04.2008 to the complainant. After the plot was allotted, the Estate Officer also gave permission to construct over the plot and also sanctioned the map. Further, the DPC certificate was also issued and accordingly the construction of building was in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent HUDA did not file these papers before the State Commission and the same are being filed by the petitioner before this Commission.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent HUDA states that execution was filed by the complainant and the account of the HUDA was attached and therefore, HUDA was compelled to comply with the illegal order of the District Forum. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the State Commission has allowed the appeal of the respondent HUDA and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint has been dismissed. Therefo